Castanet

LordEd wrote:According to the response, the purchase was approved by a committee, and there was to be some concrete pad built with delays.

Both of these involve other people and would have some form of emails or documentation. That makes the statements testable.

Which merely speaks to the systemic nature of the problem, not to the necessity of purchasing the log splitter.

I've served on many public committees and can tell you that if the committee comprised of employees who were subordinate to one or both of the two accused officials, that it would be extremely rare for them to vote against their boss's recommendation.

Alternatively if the committee was comprised of elected officials, as it's extremely difficult for elected officials to be fully cognizant with the "nitty gritty day to day" type of stuff they'd need to know in order to be able to second guess every single relatively minor purchase recommended by their CEO, most of the time such elected officials defer to such a recommendation. The logic being that if they can't trust the CEO to make such decisions, then they need to replace him (rather than try to do his job for him).

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that kind of logic, but I am saying that's the way these things often work.

Just a couple of comments. The log splitter looks like it has been used (photos that have been in newspapers). Where was it used? Even if one chooses to believe Lenz and James (and I do not), where is their common sense? Why would the taxpayers of B.C. pay for luggage, and if we must, then shouldn’t it be purchased in B.C.? Clothing and gifts? Shop locally! Restaurants and hotels fit for royalty and the very rich, not public servants. I appreciate Plecas spilling the beans and wonder why no one else has.

Bill Good has it right:

https://www.citynews1130.com/audio/minu ... bill-good/

Urbane wrote:Bill Good has it right:

https://www.citynews1130.com/audio/minu ... bill-good/

I totally agree with what Bill Good is saying. Namely, what is the motivation of Plecas?

I really don't think it is that hard to figure out. He is trying to save his own political butt.

I don't believe for a moment that any criminal charges will ever be laid against James and Lenz.

I also believe the end result of all of this mess will surprise some on these forums.

Carrs Landing Viking wrote:

Urbane wrote:Bill Good has it right:

https://www.citynews1130.com/audio/minu ... bill-good/

I totally agree with what Bill Good is saying. Namely, what is the motivation of Plecas?

I really don't think it is that hard to figure out. He is trying to save his own political butt.

I don't believe for a moment that any criminal charges will ever be laid against James and Lenz.

I also believe the end result of all of this mess will surprise some on these forums.

I sincerly disagree and it will be a travisty if these two theiving scum bags get away scott free

"BUT" look what happened in the Duffy case ?? he lucked out and got a judge with his head up his

Carrs Landing Viking wrote:
I totally agree with what Bill Good is saying. Namely, what is the motivation of Plecas?

I really don't think it is that hard to figure out. He is trying to save his own political butt.

I don't believe for a moment that any criminal charges will ever be laid against James and Lenz.

I also believe the end result of all of this mess will surprise some on these forums.

It's as if Bill Good has been reading what some of us on here have been saying . . .

He certainly makes sense and I urge everyone to listen to his short podcast.

Whatever Plecas's motivations may, or may not, have been, that doesn't take away from the fact that this scandal has exposed a systemic problem at the Legislature regarding approving the expenses and other pay expenditures of these two high ranking officials.

And if, at the end of the day, there is a tightening of the approvals process, and better accountability, then it will all have been worth it.

It's been mentioned several times on this thread, by several different posters, that Lenz and James's behaviour may well not have been criminal, because they didn't break any actual rules. But that doesn't mean that their behaviour was appropriate - far from it. High ranking officials, who are themselves responsible for recommending such rules to their political masters, are expected to adhere to a high standard of ethics; even higher than most of their subordinates. That's one of the reasons they get paid the big bucks - they're supposed to be trustworthy individuals who wouldn't take advantage of such glaring loopholes in the system.

And these two clearly failed to adhere to that expected high moral standard.

RE Bill Good podcast:

Keith Baldrey:

And forget talk about possible recall campaigns against Plecas and Attorney General David Eby having an impact. Like all previous recall campaigns (save one that was never officially examined) they are doomed to failure, as the recall bar is set very, very high in terms of the number of signatures required in a tight time frame.

I also think Bill Goods' basic biases need to be considered.

Urban Cowboy wrote:Well I certainly do believe the "blind" part.

the definition of blind is voting in a government for 20 years that fostered and cultivated a culture where common theft from taxpayers was commonplace. whether it be in casinos or in the legislature. not just in the party itself - but permeating itself into traditional structures within the bc legislature. yet - liberal cheerleaders voted for them time and again. perhaps this says a lot about those voters own actions through guilt by association. perhaps these same people have the same tendencies as the leaders they voted in. perhaps there was no correction of these types of actions under liberals - because liberal voters simply voted them in time after time. and the liberal party felt generous to people in the legislature with our money.

LANDM wrote:How can they give proof if they are barred from accessing any of the documents? It would be impossible to furnish a paper trail.

perhaps they cant access the paper trail because they come from a triple delete culture created by the liberals? that conveniently loses evidence and paperwork in the past?

burnedatstake wrote:

LANDM wrote:How can they give proof if they are barred from accessing any of the documents? It would be impossible to furnish a paper trail.

perhaps they cant access the paper trail because they come from a triple delete culture created by the liberals? that conveniently loses evidence and paperwork in the past?

Do you not read *any* of the information relating to this?

They literally are barred from access to their office, and any of the documents relating to this, unless such documents were in their personal possession.

flamingfingers wrote:
I also think Bill Goods' basic biases need to be considered.

Oh, the irony! I urge anyone on here who is reasonably objective to listen to Bill Good's podcast because he makes excellent points.

Merry wrote:Whatever Plecas's motivations may, or may not, have been, that doesn't take away from the fact that this scandal has exposed a systemic problem at the Legislature regarding approving the expenses and other pay expenditures of these two high ranking officials.

And if, at the end of the day, there is a tightening of the approvals process, and better accountability, then it will all have been worth it.

It's been mentioned several times on this thread, by several different posters, that Lenz and James's behaviour may well not have been criminal, because they didn't break any actual rules. But that doesn't mean that their behaviour was appropriate - far from it. High ranking officials, who are themselves responsible for recommending such rules to their political masters, are expected to adhere to a high standard of ethics; even higher than most of their subordinates. That's one of the reasons they get paid the big bucks - they're supposed to be trustworthy individuals who wouldn't take advantage of such glaring loopholes in the system.

And these two clearly failed to adhere to that expected high moral standard.

Merry, I doubt that anyone on here would disagree that the culture of entitlement needs to end.

https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2019/02/0 ... ign=110219

How about this?

Cactusflower wrote:https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2019/02/06/Journalists-Legislature-Scandal/?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110219

How about this?

He wrote this the day before the responses from James and Lenz were available but I'd say he makes some reasonable points. For example:

By comparison, Plecas isn’t a member of the establishment, and he hasn’t been savvy either. He avoided reporters following the suspensions. He didn’t answer their questions. He hired and tried to gain a promotion for a friend. And in his words and deeds, he has been hyperbolic and erratic. In other words, he also gave reporters more than enough excuse to scrutinize him. And he gave them something to cover in the absence of details about the allegations against James.

I likely would have covered Plecas’s missteps too, since we’re often told there are two sides to every story — an adage reinforced by the right-left dichotomy of provincial politics and the discipline of journalism.

So what does this all mean? Does it mean, as some have suggested, that members of the press gallery owe Plecas an apology? I don’t think so. Plecas gave them more than enough cause to cover him critically. It’s also possible Plecas will be proven wrong and that James and Lenz will be proven innocent.

That job will be made easier if the government follows through on its commitment to bring the legislative assembly under the province’s freedom of information law. Such a change will allow the public, including the news media, to request records from the assembly that its officials would not otherwise willingly publicize. The possibility of publication could also pre-emptively reduce the chances of wrongdoing.